PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME: IS IT VALID?

• Citation: (2018) 30 SAcLJ 727
• Author: Jennifer TEOH BSocSci (Hons) (National University of Singapore), MPsych (Forensic) (University of New South Wales); Director, Senior Principal Forensic Psychologist (Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service), Ministry of Social and Family Development, Singapore; Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore. Grace S CHNG BSc Psych (University of York), DPhil Psych (Bielefeld University); Assistant Manager, Senior Research Specialist (Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service), Ministry of Social and Family Development, Singapore. Chi Meng CHU BSocSci (Hons) (National University of Singapore), DPsych (Clinical) (Monash University); CPsychol (UK); CSci (UK); Deputy Director, Senior Principal Clinical and Forensic Psychologist (Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service), Ministry of Social and Family Development, Singapore; Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore.
• Date: 01 December 2018
• Published date: 01 December 2018

“Parental alienation syndrome” (“PAS”) is a controversial theory which has been increasingly used in child custody battles before family courts in overseas jurisdictions. This article begins with defining PAS, and elaborates on its use in cases seen in Australia, the UK, and the US. It then proceeds to discuss the scientific, ethical, diagnostic and legal issues related to PAS. The article concludes that the acceptance and indiscriminate use of PAS may be dangerous in the medical and legal arenas, as it may result in a failure to comprehensively investigate abuse allegations, and a failure to account for complex family dynamics in custody decisions. Ultimately, a child-centric approach, rooted in comprehensive family assessment and interventions, should be recommended in child custody cases.

I. Introduction

1 Divorce is a rising trend in Singapore,1 with the proportion of adults who have divorced at least twice also on the rise.2 In 2016, 48% of divorces under the Women's Charter3 had at least one dependent child under 18 years.4 In divorces under the Administration of Muslim Law Act,5 56% had at least one dependent child.6 From 2005 to 2015, The Family Justice Courts recorded more than 50,600 children who saw their parents file for divorce.7 Most of these children were young, with seven in ten aged below 14 years.

2 The majority of custody arrangements are settled privately or through mediation. However, a proportion of these divorces are high-conflict and proceed to litigation in family courts. High-conflict cases involves great distrust and anger between parents, with children often caught in between. Custody battles in such cases are highly stressful, with a higher probability of allegations of child abuse or domestic violence in high-conflict cases.8

3 “Parental alienation syndrome” (“PAS”), also known as “parental alienation disorder”, is a controversial theory which has been increasingly used in child custody battles before family courts in Australia, the UK, and the US in the last two decades. In Singapore, parental alienation has been mentioned in some local cases in recent years.9 Hence, it is important for us to take a closer look at PAS: does it have good scientific and diagnostic bases? Should this concept be admissible in legal settings?

II. What is parental alienation syndrome?

4 The term “PAS” was coined by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner to describe, in the context of a custody dispute, a child's unjustified denigration of a parent, which comes in the form of trivial, highly exaggerated or totally untrue accusations.10 The child is found to form a strong alliance with one parent while strongly rejecting a relationship with the other parent.11 In Gardner's experience, the preferred parent whom the child aligns with is almost always the mother,12 and the breakdown of the parent–child relationship is solely attributed to the custody dispute.13

5 Gardner proposed eight symptoms of PAS:14 (a) the campaign of denigration; (b) weak, frivolous and absurd rationalisations for the denigration; (c) lack of ambivalence;15 (d) the “independent-thinker” phenomenon;16 (e) reflexive support of the alienating parent in the parental conflict; (f) absence of guilt over custody to and/or exploitation of the alienated parent; (g) presence of borrowed scenarios;17 and (h) spread of the animosity to the extended family of the alienated parent. In typical cases, Gardner stated that children with PAS will exhibit most (if not all) of these symptoms.

6 The cause of PAS is attributed to a combination of two factors: (a) a preferred parent who “programmes” the child to denigrate the rejected parent; and (b) the child adding his own material to the denigration.18 Thus, the initiator is termed as a pathological parent who embeds his own ideas and attitudes into the child, also termed as “programming” or “brainwashing”. The child's rejection of a parent is then seen as an outcome of such “programming”, and not reflective of the child's feelings or beliefs towards the rejected parent. Gardner postulated that the child also creates his own statements and narratives to contribute to the denigration of the rejected parent.

7 PAS was originally not intended to be applicable to cases where sexual abuse allegations against fathers are involved.19 In cases where there is no abuse, PAS was suggested by Gardner to be the reason for false abuse allegations, in order to keep the child away from the rejected parent.

8 However, the issue of how to distinguish true sexual allegations from false ones has not been adequately addressed by Gardner's theory. In the absence of clear diagnostic criteria for sexual abuse, the legitimacy of abuse allegations in PAS is focused on subjective personality characteristics of the parties involved, as opposed to expert assessments of the abuse or the consideration of other factors which may contribute to the hostile parent–child relationship.20 For example, a parent who holds a stable job, is well-mannered and articulate, may influence evaluators to debase the legitimacy of abuse claims, rather than to closely examine them. Gardner proposed a diagnostic tool named the “Sexual Abuse Legitimacy Scale” to address this issue, but later withdrew this non-empirically validated tool due to considerable criticism.21

9 Furthermore, it is a concern that PAS is no longer limited to sexual abuse allegations. Instead, it is routinely used in custody cases for

other types of abuse and/or when a mother seeks to restrict a father's access to the child.22

10 Treatments for PAS are highly authoritarian and confrontational,23 based on the assumption that the relationship of an alienated child with the rejected parent will be irreparably damaged, unless drastic measures are taken, such as (a) custody transfer to the rejected parent for deprogramming; (b) threats of legal deprivations of custody and visitation in relation to the preferred parent; or (c) even court-orders which terminate all contact with the preferred parent.24 Highly coercive measures also include being placed in institutional care for a period of time, special reunification “camps”, and even incarceration to reject the influence of the preferred parent.25

11 Janet R Johnston and colleagues have tried to remove the controversial elements of PAS and revise it in the framework of the alienated child, which is also associated with the term “parental alienation”.26 In the revised framework, the new formulation shifts the focus from the preferred parent's “programming” behaviour to that of the child's.27 They conceptualised alienation as part of a spectrum of the child's relationship with the parent after separation and divorce,28 and have included an assessment of the multiple reasons which may account for a child's behaviour towards his parent.29 At the healthy end where a child has a positive relationship with both parents, he desires continuity and contact with both parents even though there may be a stronger affinity for one parent. Further along the spectrum, estrangement may

have occurred due to a parent's history of violence, abuse or neglect, or due to severe parental deficiencies such as persistent immature parental behaviours and chronic emotional abuse of the child or preferred parent. In such situations, the child forms an alliance with one parent but wants limited contact with the other. Finally, the alienated child is introduced as a child who expressly rejects a parent who has no history of physical or emotional abuse with him. The child's negative views and feelings are considered to be significantly distorted and exaggerated reactions. In the absence of factors leading up to these highly rejecting behaviours, this response is considered to be maladaptive and detrimental to safety and well-being.

12 When it comes to treatment for alienation, the revised model differentiates itself from the original PAS theory, such that it does not employ coercive methods in the form of threats and custody switching. Instead, it encourages individualised assessments of the child and the parents, maintaining a focus on the children's needs rather than the parents' “rights”.30

13 Additionally, the revised model is different from the original PAS theory in its multifactorial approach. Multiple explanations are considered to account for the child's harsh rejection of one parent, and his preference for the other. The child's response is considered in the context of (a) parental personality traits, beliefs and parenting behaviours of both the preferred and rejected parents; (b) highly stressful separation, divorce and litigation processes; (c) contributions of extended family members, new partners and professionals; and (d) the child's developmental stage (that is, age and cognitive capacity), temperament and personality vulnerabilities.31

14 However, although there are merits to the revised model, Joan S Meier, a professor of Clinical Law at George Washington University Law School, stated that the delineation of the alienated child in the revised model with the original PAS theory has not been clear.32 When one considers the setting, response and behaviour of the alienated child which lies at the end spectrum of the revised model, many features draw on the foundation set by PAS: (a) the phenomenon of the alienated child occurs mostly in high-conflict custody disputes; (b) the strong resistance of the child to contact with the rejected parent occurs with a denigration

of that rejected parent; (c) the child's allegations against the rejected parent are postulated as the script of the preferred parent; and (d) the preferred parent strongly believes that the rejected parent is dangerous to the child in some way: that is, violent, physically or sexually abusive, or neglectful.33 There also remains an emphasis in the revised model that mothers are not conscious of those behaviours they have which may encourage the alienating behaviours of the...